CAIRO—The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya on Sunday and said he would call a new league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.
Moussa said the Arab League’s approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to embrace the intense bombing and missile attacks—including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces—that have filled Arab television screens for the last two days.
“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement on the official Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”
Moussa’s declaration suggested some of the 22 Arab League members were taken aback by what they have seen and wanted to modify their approval lest they be perceived as accepting outright Western military intervention in Libya. Although the eccentric Gaddafi is widely looked down on in the Arab world, Middle Eastern leaders and their peoples traditionally have risen up in emotional protest at the first sign of Western intervention.
A shift away from the Arab League endorsement, even partial, would constitute an important setback to the U.S.-European campaign. Western leaders brandished the Arab League decision as a justification for their decision to move militarily and as a weapon in the debate to obtain a U.N. Security Council resolution two days before the bombing began.
As U.S. and European military operations entered their second day, however, most Arab governments maintained public silence and the strongest expressions of opposition came from the greatest distance. Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Fidel Castro of Cuba condemned the intervention and suggested Western powers were seeking to get their hands on Libya’s oil reserves rather than limit the bloodshed in the country.
Gaddafi may become target of air strikes, Liam Fox admits Coalition forces accused of mission creep and disproportionate action against Tripoli
Patrick Wintour and Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 March 2011 21.37 GMT
Critics claim that Gaddafi's departure has become an explicit goal of UN policy.
America, France and Britain – the leaders of the coalition's air attacks on Libya – were struggling to maintain international support for their actions, as they faced stinging criticism about mission creep from the leader of the Arab League, as well as from China and Russia.
Critics claimed that the coalition of the willing may have been acting disproportionately and had come perilously close to making Gaddafi's departure an explicit goal of UN policy.
Russia, which abstained on the UN vote last week, called for "an end to indiscriminate force".
Despite denials from coalition forces, Alexander Lukashevich, Russia's foreign ministry spokesman, said that the coalition had hit non-military targets.
He suggested that 48 civilians had been killed. "We believe a mandate given by the UN security council resolution – a controversial move in itself – should not be used to achieve goals outside its provisions, which only see measures necessary to protect civilian population," he said.
The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, also startled western governments when he denounced the air attacks only a week after the league had called for creation of a no-fly zone.
Moussa, who is a candidate for the Egyptian presidency, said: "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."
The Foreign Office later said Moussa claimed he had been misquoted, or had put his criticism more strongly in Arabic than in English. "We will continue to work with our Arab partners to enforce the resolution for the good of the Libyan people," the FO said.
The Arab League had, though, been called to an emergency session to discuss the scale of the attacks.
The British defence secretary, Liam Fox, said the scale was in line with UN resolutions that had been "essential in terms of the Gaddafi regime's ability to prosecute attacks on their own people". He also said it was possible that Gaddafi himself could become a target of air attacks if the safety of civilians could be guaranteed.
Ahead of a Commons debate and vote tomorrow, leading figures in David Cameron's cabinet were under pressure to clarify whether the explicit purpose of the attacks was to render Gaddafi's regime so powerless that it collapses.
Speaking on the Politics Show, Fox said: "Mission accomplished would mean the Libyan people free to control their own destiny. This is very clear – the international community wants his regime to end and wants the Libyan people to control for themselves their own country."
He then added: "Regime change is not an objective, but it may come about as a result of what is happening amongst the people of Libya."
He said: "When the dynamic shifts and the equilibrium shifts, we will get a better idea just how much support the Gaddafi regime has and how much the people of Libya genuinely long to be able to control their own country.
"If Colonel Gaddafi went, not every eye would be wet."
Fox said it was possible that allied forces might treat Gaddafi himself as a legitimate target for air strikes.
"There is a difference between someone being a legitimate target and whether we go ahead and target him," he said. "You would have to take into account what would happen to civilians in the area, what might happen in terms of collateral damage. We don't simply with a gung-ho attitude start firing off missiles."
One UK defence source said: "If we are seeking to destroy a military resource and he [Gaddafi] is caught in the process, that will not be our doing."
Fox also made it clear that the allied attacks would extend in the coming days from Gaddafi's air defence systems to his artillery.
Britain has ruled out the use of ground forces, but some of the more hawkish cabinet members such as the chancellor, George Osborne, only said ground forces were "ruled out for the moment".
In the Commons debate Labour will call for an explicit guarantee that British ground troops will not be involved.
But in a boost to the coalition, there were signs that some of the much-trailed practical Arab involvement in the air strikes had finally materialised – after Qatar last night sent four planes to work alongside the French in the second round of attacks designed to set up a no fly zone across Libya.
Britain is hopeful of further input from the United Arab Emirates, following calls by Fox. Arab political support, and military participation is vital to reduce the credibility of Gaddafi's claims that this is a western act of aggression against a Muslim country.
In an effort to reassure Arab opinion, Fox stressed plans to hand some of the co-ordination of the operation to Nato would allow a wider group of participants. But the attacks were under UN auspices.
In the US, the Obama administration was more restrained in its language. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, insisted the campaign was only a limited, humanitarian operation, not a war, and was not aimed at regime change, as both Cameron and Sarkozy have suggested.
"The goals of this campaign are limited. It is not about seeing him [Gaddafi] go. It is about supporting the UN resolution."
Asked if the mission could be accomplished with Gaddafi still in power, Mullen replied: "This is one outcome."
The Pentagon has been reluctant to become engaged in a third war against a Muslim country in the space of a decade and pressed Barack Obama on the dangers of mission creep.
Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, said that Obama had given them assurances on that and the Pentagon was satisfied.....
Bombing libyan troops rather than just the anti-aircraft installations to establish a "no fly zone". Supposedly the U.N. and the U.S. wasn't taking sides in the civil war, but protecting civilians from air strikes.
"The goals of this campaign are limited. It is not about seeing him [Gaddafi] go. It is about supporting the UN resolution."
Quoted Text
Even if it came late, resolution 1973 marks a significant moment in repairing the deep damage caused by the war in Iraq, and the failure then of the UN security council to authorise the use of force, either explicitly or, in the view of just about every international lawyer I know, at all.
This time the council has come together to signal its disgust at large-scale attacks on civilians and the transformation of political processes in north Africa. It is one of those rare occasions in which the use of force has been authorised under chapter VII.
Significantly, not one of the 15 members opposed action, a factor that is connected to recent events in Tunisia and Egypt and last weekend's remarkable call for action by the Arab League, and the particular authority of its secretary-general, Amr Moussa.
Resolution 1973 has two important objectives.
The first is to protect civilians, by authorising all UN members to "take all necessary measures … to protect civilians … under threat of attack … while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".
The second is to imposes an effective no fly zone in the form of a ban on all flights in Libya's airspace, except for those with an exclusively humanitarian purpose, to help protect civilians.
Only time will tell whether the resolution catalyses actions by Arab and western powers that are necessary to achieve the real but unstated objective of some of its sponsors, namely the early removal from power of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his clan.
The protracted lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan weigh heavily, and the language of the resolution appears to allow more than only defensive or reactive military measures.
The authorisation of "all necessary measures" is broad and appears to allow the targeting of Gaddafi and others who act to put civilians "under threat of attack", words that go beyond the need to establish a connection with actual attacks.
And the language precluding any "foreign occupation force" is also ambiguous. It might be interpreted to allow the arming of rebel groups and – to the extent it is requested by those groups – feet on the ground in the form of support that falls short of being "an occupation force".
The real intent of the resolution – and its effect - will be tested by Gaddafi's announcement of a ceasefire, assuming it to be genuine. Whilst welcome if acted upon for bringing respite to some civilians, it could impose upon others the prospect of a stalemate and many more years under the Gaddafis. The ball will then be in the court of the rebels, who are unlikely to accept this latest offer.
I strongly welcome the resolution but inevitably it gives rise to challenging questions. If Libya today, why not Bahrain tomorrow? At what point do such attacks on civilians cross a threshold of unacceptability? What if the attacks are led not by Gaddafi but by an old and trusted ally?
These serious, legitimate questions will have to be answered, now that a new door of international action has been opened. But for now urgent action is needed to stop the attacks on Libyan civilians, so they are given the space to put in place a government they want and that meets their aspirations in a challenging world.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Does Gadhafi pose a imminent threat to America? In 2002, Obama said Hussain didn't - does he(Mr Nobel Piece Prize Winner) consider Libya a "stupid war"?
Obama put the loyal Obama-maniacs in a tough spot. No wonder Boxy has been soooooooooo quiet. Hahahahahahahaha
Ooooohhh,,,Ohhhhh....Looks like Boxy is back. Huffington and the Kos must have come out with arguments and clever graphics and cartoons to spin this for Obama. My guess is he will somehow find a retarded way to blame this on Bush by the law of seven degrees of separation.
All this bottled up right wing rage, and no outlet. Poor Cicero
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Poor Cicero, With his limited view of the world, he's often wrong.
Worthy opponent!!! LMAO. A waste of time.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
